Artist Sam Keith dies at 63

Decider's reporting the veteran artist Sam Keith is dead at 63 years old. But there's one item listed here that they probably should've left out, although there are other things he drew that were in questionable taste, more on which anon:

The comic book world is saying goodbye to one of its most distinctive voices. Sam Kieth — the boundary-pushing creator of The Maxx and an early artistic force behind The Sandman — has died at 63 following a battle with Lewy body dementia, a degenerative brain disorder that causes cognitive decline, hallucinations, and Parkinson-like symptoms.

Born January 11, 1963, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kieth emerged in the 1980s with a style that felt immediately out of step with traditional superhero comics — in the best way. While his early work at Marvel put him on titles featuring Wolverine and the Hulk, Kieth gravitated toward stories that leaned more surreal, psychological, and emotionally jagged than your typical capes-and-punches fare.

That sensibility fully crystallized in 1993 with The Maxx, his Image Comics series that quickly became a cult favorite. Blurring the lines between reality and fantasy, the story follows a homeless man who believes he’s a powerful protector in another world. Its exploration of trauma, identity, and fractured perception struck a chord with readers — and eventually led to an animated adaptation that cemented its legacy.

Before The Maxx, Kieth had already made a major impact helping launch The Sandman alongside Neil Gaiman. As the artist on the first five issues, he established much of the book’s shadowy, gothic tone, laying visual groundwork for what would become one of the most acclaimed comic series ever published.

Sigh. It's already old news that the disgraced Gaiman was a bad choice for whom to work with, so what's the use of bringing this up? If anything, it's not a great landmark on Keith's resume. Although there's also a few other examples from his portfolio that're questionable by today's standards, and which I may as well write about here, if only because who knows if they'd be published so easily today. But how interesting they admit Keith dealt with the surreal, because there's only so many other instances where the press insists on being "realistic", at the expense of surrealism. Presumably, Keith gets a pass because what he dealt with was more violent, among other issues questionable in nature.

For example, according to Tubewad's description of The Maxx's adaptation on MTV:

MTV’s version of The Maxx follows the plot of the comics so faithfully that you could watch the entire series and not have missed anything in books 1-11 While it did not always move sequentially—for example, The Maxx .5 is featured in episode 6, and the Darker Image preview is in another—it hits every major plot point. MTV’s version is able to draw all of the anger, betrayal, pain and repression from the comics and portray that in a way that is faithful to Keith’s vision. While it never explains that Julie was raped by Mr. Gone, or that she hit Maxx with her car (as it shouldn’t, since these are post-book 11 events), it does give a good idea of the emotional intensity that exists between the characters. It shows how much Julie and Maxx care for each other, and how that love serves as a bond that has to be severed in order to allow growth for either of them.

So the Maxx comic is something involving sexual violence. And we're supposed to be impressed, just like that? If anything, the following GN he published in the early 2000s, Zero Girl, is certainly embarrassing, if we were to go by what's told on GoodReads:

This is an odd book, as everything Sam Kieth does typically is. This is the story of a 15 year old social outcast. She sees squares as trying to get her and circles save her. The shapes shift to and fro monsters. That's the interesting part. The skeevy part is the relationship she has with her guidance counselor. She constantly flirts with him and he's more than tempted. It's icky to put it mildly. It's ultimately why I can't recommend the book. Keith's art is it's usual great, highly stylized self.

I vaguely recall this being spoken about in some comics circles at the time it first came out (and there was a sequel published at least 2 years later), and it did sound dismaying even then. If the girl, who bears the absurdly cartoonish last name "Smootster", had been 16, the age gap might've been less an issue. But Keith had to run the risk of making this into some statutorily inappropriate affair. Was that really necessary? Today, the chances this kind of story would be published without arguement by most publishers are much lower, and for all we know, Keith himself probably would've been more hesitant about crafting such a tale where a girl who's under the legal consenting age in most western countries would be portrayed this way. There's more about the premises of these GNs on Gizmodo that's even more stupefying, along with the premise of a GN titled Four Women:

And in his other stories, the traditional roles are reversed in unexpected ways. The villain Mr. Gone in The Maxx is a victim of his aunt’s sexual abuse, Zero Girl protagonist Amy Smootster is in such intense sexual pursuit of her guidance counselor that it kind of feels predatorial. Maybe this inversion is colored by Kieth’s own life -– he met his wife when he was 15 and she was 35. Or maybe they’re just his own “inner bimbo” (though his is more like “inner crazy lady in the public park who wears tinfoil on her head and screams about the Bay Of Pigs”). But whatever, because I’m into it!

Though there are conventional battles of good vs. evil, the final terrors in Kieth’s comics are emotional. In his most realistic piece, Four Women, we double back on a horrible sexual assault on four women during a car ride –- while the event itself was the catalyst, it’s the tensions and moral dilemmas the women now face with each other and themselves for throwing each other under the bus, basically, that drives the narrative. Rape also figures prominently into Julie’s alternate-universe reign as the Jungle Queen in her Outback in The Maxx, which I’m aware sounds totally insane if you haven’t read these comics. So read them, (and also this interview on Sequential Tart.)

What's irritating about the description is that it sounds like Keith wrote the Maxx that way to water down the seriousness of Mr. Gone's own actions. And he even made Amy in Zero Girl look like an aggressor if that's what it took to justify that too? I'm not impressed. Though at least we know French president Emmanuel Macron and his much older wife Brigitte Trogneux aren't the only ones of their sort. The Gizmodo item was written 14 years ago, and one can only wonder if their writers would back such a GN today as they did before. And if they don't condone an affair where the man's older while the girl's under legal statutory threshold, would they apply the same standards to an older woman-younger boy affair? If not, that just demonstrates how stunningly inconsistent PC advocates can be with their beliefs.

Now, Keith's gone, and he's left behind a portfolio that, while the MSM may not make anything clear, really is in questionable taste, topped off by how some of the women in his stories are made to look absurdly, questionably bad themselves. And is that the kind of stuff we ever needed? Not really.

Green Lantern in live action is now adapted by producer who despises the color

John Nolte at Breitbart addresses the subject of how a TV producer who apparently dislikes comics is in charge of a new show simply titled "Lanterns":

It has been revealed that HBO’s upcoming Green Lantern series is run by a guy who hates … green.

Executive producer Damon Lindelof (pictured) hates green so much that instead of calling the series by its legendary comic book name, Green Lanterns, he decided to call it … Lanterns. [...]

Lindelof has made no secret of his contempt for the color green. “It’s called Lanterns, because we all agreed that the ‘Green’ was stupid, so now it’s just Lanterns,” he said on a podcast.

Also, as you can see in the trailer, Lindelof’s Lanterns is a neo-Western, but in the comic books, the Green Lanterns are space cops.

Why?

Well, DC Studios co-chief James Gunn thinks that whole space concept is absurd. “It’s a very grounded, real show,” he said of Lanterns. “It’s taking this outlandish concept of space cops with magic rings and putting it in as close to reality as it can possibly be.”

Why does Hollywood continue to hand beloved franchises over to people who hate the franchise?

You could also ask why nobody cared about the abomination called Zero Hour that Hal Jordan was forced into over 3 decades ago, turned into a deadly villain for the sake of replacing him with a younger counterpart who was badly written and characterized at the time, that being Kyle Rayner. And things became worse even after Hal was resurrected, no thanks to Geoff Johns.

I wouldn't be shocked if the produers of this new Lanterns TV show didn't like Marvel's most surreal comics either, like Excalibur. "Grounded in reality" is exactly what's gone wrong, and become far too commonplace in how entertainment is crafted these days. Science fiction's been ruined by such hysteria. Nobody knows how to balance these things out at all.

I'll be staying far away from this new TV show, and this news is certainly telling as to what's wrong with filmmaker Gunn by extension. Which could explain why his takes on Guardians of the Galaxy won't age well, and why it's better to read the original comics instead.

Where Kurt Busiek now posts his sad political rants

Years ago, when X was Twitter, leftist writer Kurt Busiek had plenty of terrible leftist drivel to say there. Today, after Elon Musk bought out the social network, it looks like Busiek no longer posts there, presumably because he can't stand being on a rightist-owned site, and now he's turned to Blue Sky. And here's a few examples of his continuing leftist rhetoric there. For example:

Wow, look how he's trying to draw a moral equivalence between antisemitic and "anti-palestinian" sentiment, making it sound like Iran's mullahs are literally against local Moslems, or as though the fabricated race/community "palestine" isn't Islamic. Put another way, Busiek's clearly not interested in doing any research to determine that the whole name "palestine" was a Roman conception, drawing from the Philistines, to humiliate the land of Stan Lee's ancestry. Also interesting how Busiek simultaneously attacks the POTUS who's now overseeing a raid against Iran's tyrants to destroy their murderous weaponry. Whose side is Busiek on anyway? He's right that Iran's got anti-LGBTQ positions, but, if he won't acknowledge it stems from the teachings of the koran, then his approach there falls flat too.

Then we have:

The USA military many sigificant achievements so far, like destroying Iran's naval crafts, and Busiek's ungrateful? Just what and who does Busiek stand for anyway?

Busiek even posted the following involving Israel:

How intriguing he lectures us all that Israelis across the board literally don't support Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, this despite how recent pollings show he has sizable support, and plenty of support for the war against Iran's tyrants. What's telling here is how Busiek doesn't back up his claim, and while he may acknowledge the Islamofascists of Iran are willing to attack civilians, his absurd biases ruin any notion he respects the Israeli public on anything. Also atrocious is how Busiek subtly compares Netanyahu to the Iranian Islamofascists. Shame.

Next we have this:

And is that supposed to mean the military commanders don't face any danger, say, from enemy moles and sleeper agents? Oh good grief, this is just so naive. Then there's this and this:

Busiek won't learn lessons either, that wasting so much energy attacking conservatives doesn't improve the situation. And if he's implying Americans and Israelis who allegedly want war should die, that's disturbing as well, and sick. Besides, it's not that any sensible person literally wants war for "fun". They support war against tyrants because there's situations where force is inevitable if that's what it takes to stop barbarism. Busiek also made unverified claims that Israelis literally are guilty of war crimes, and also this item, and this one:

Well if that's what he thinks, but doesn't think the Islamofascists running Afghanistan today aren't guilty of war crimes against the ancient Buddhist inhabitants who originally dwelled there, that's disgraceful too. Ditto if he doesn't think Turkey's guilty of war crimes against Armenia. And Busiek also reposted the following from Tom Peyer:

I guess that means Mr. Peyer's also hostile to Israelis, conservative or otherwise? For shame. Later on, Busiek made a nasty comment about Trump:

And then, what did Busiek say about the US army attack on Kharg island?

If he's no military expert, he has no business commenting, and also had no business writing superhero comics. But who knows, maybe today, he regrets writing superhero tales. It is rather funny he'd write anything starring say, Captain America, considering Kirby/Simon created Steve Rogers as a military cadet who volunteered for the super-soldier serum experiment that made him the formidable fighter he became. But then, that's why, if Busiek really feels that way today, he should no longer be writing superhero themes, plain and simple.

Interestingly, if it matters, Busiek also mentioned the disgraced Gerard Jones, and said the following:

What's that supposed to mean long before? Does that mean people not wanting to benefit monsters is something that only recently came up? Let's be clear. If Jones had been caught in the acts years before and it made headlines in the news, you can be sure there's plenty who'd want nothing to do with him anymore. And must it be pointed out Staton didn't just illustrate comics written by sick Jones? Staton got into comics as far back as the early 1970s, and he'd drawn Green Lantern before, beginning in 1979, for stories written by writers with far better reputations than Jones will ever have at this stage. Staton also has other comics to his credits (including some Batman books), and even a few at Marvel. What, does Busiek have a grudge against Staton or something? That aside, if there's anything Busiek wrote that perhaps we shouldn't benefit, it's his creator-owned comics like Astro City and Arrowsmith, based on how he's indirectly insulting plenty of decent USA military officials who're working hard to bring down the Islamic regime in Iran. Don't their reputations matter? Don't even the reputations of 911 Families matter? Why, what about Betty Mahmoody, who was fortunate to get her daughter out of Iran during the mid 1980s after her creep of a husband taqqiya'd them into traveling there? How don't topics like those ever matter to Busiek?

And since Jones came up, this is very embarrassing, but it appears that since his release from prison nearly 4 years ago, he's been quietly turning up on social media again, and even posting chapters of a book he wrote called "Ginny Good" on a Substack site. Most disgraced writers of his sort would ususally just disappear after all the harm they caused. But Jones appears to be one of those sorts who cannot keep his stupid mouth shut. And if there's at least one example of what political rants he's posting to put on display here, it's the following:

Well. Looks like Jones hasn't changed from the time he first said a decade back he considered Trump a "fascist". And I guess he also considers Trump a communist, seeing how he claims the POTUS wants to be like Vladimir Putin. And all this after Jones was arrested and convicted for illegally hoarding child porn. What, does he think because he's been paroled from prison after 2 thirds of his sentence, it's okay to go right back to such crap again? As though it weren't bad enough he was trying to downplay his criminal offenses when he was still behind bars. All that aside, does he really think anybody wants to read even his text-only books after what he did? Such a repellent disgrace indeed. I wonder how Busiek feels about having written a backup story for Wonder Man in one of the 2 annuals for the 1991-94 series Jones wrote over 3 decades ago? That series was practically worthless as it is.

It's very sad some of the same leftist comics writers of the past decade refuse to stop wasting time on divisive politics, yet quite interesting how, ever since X/Twitter was bought out by a conservative supporter, they decided to jump ship from that service over to one that's more attuned to their leftist beliefs. That, alas, doesn't make the situation any better for the well being of the world.

A supposed throwback to past teenage movies that only gives them a bad name

The Daily Dead interviewed Jude Ellison Doyle and Caitlin Yarsky, the writer and artist of a new horror comic titlted Dead Teenagers, and in discussing the premise:

The unfortunate friends in the new five-issue comic book series Dead Teenagers don't have a choice, as they're forced to relive their 1997 prom night in a lethal time loop that kills them thousands of times through increasingly bizarre methods, with everything from a giant lizard to malevolent mannequins resulting in their violent demises before they reboot and live through death all over again with one goal in mind: to break the vicious cycle and figure out why for them, as Bowling for Soup sings, "High school never ends."

Perfect for fans of Happy Death Day and ’90s slashers, Dead Teenagers is a blood-splattered ride down memory lane that is fun, heartfelt, and easily one of my favorite comic books of 2026. [...]

It's interesting to note that Happy Death Day was scripted by the aforementioned Scott Lobdell, in one of at least a handful of forays he did into screenplay writing. And if that's the kind of slop he thinks makes for great entertainment, it just explains what's wrong with Lobdell's MO in the long run. If he hasn't had any involvement with writing the X-Men in a quarter century, it's for the best.

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions for us, Jude and Caitlin, and congratulations on your new comic book series Dead Teenagers! I love time loop stories and really dug the first issue of this series. When did you initially come up with the idea for this mind-bending story?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: There were a lot of origin points for this story, not least the fact that I’m now a grown-up and have a lot more compassion for teenagers and my own teenage self than I used to, but the truth is, I thought it would be fun to have a high-school reunion for slasher teenagers where they all commiserated about the most embarrassing ways they had died. I wanted to see someone cope with the existential horror of realizing they were only created to be drowned in a toilet by the enraged mutant son of their mean landlady, or something. Then I realized they would have to be alive in order to look back on their deaths, and that sort of slowly folded out into this idea.

What disgust, though obviously a moot point. This is what the entertainment industry's all about? Seriously, if this is all that can be marketed to teens, if that's really what they're doing, something's horribly wrong.

Dead Teenagers swaps the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia to look at the past through a nightmarish lens that pulls no punches. How important was it for you both to tap into the horrors of nostalgia with this story?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: I think we romanticize “the teen years”—or OUR teen years—as this ideal point in time when you were just grown-up enough to have fun and fall in love, but not yet adult enough to have any real problems. Even people who had really horrible teenage experiences tend to project that image of carefree youth onto other people. I do.

The truth is, though, that nearly anyone who grows up enough has the experience of looking back at their teen years and realizing that things were really screwed-up and hard back then, sometimes in ways they didn’t even have names for at the time. Forms of sexual violence that we protest today were normalized, or slurs and other forms of bigotry that we consider horrible today were part of everyday conversation; just look at those famous John Hughes movies, where every other line is a rape joke or a gay joke.

Being a teenager isn’t any easier or safer than being an adult, even if you don’t always have the vocabulary to name what’s wrong. So that’s what Dead Teenagers is about: the characters are slowly realizing that all the violence they’re growing up with, which they’ve taken almost for granted, isn’t actually normal or okay.

Caitlin Yarsky: Horror may be the most fitting genre to contextualize and express the dark side of growing up. Like Jude said, being a teenager isn’t any safer than being an adult. It’s really often less safe, depending on our environment and the people around us. We don’t have autonomy or control over our lives at that time, and talking about it can be scary because we don’t know who we can trust. I think horror can help convey that feeling of helplessness and fear, while also reminding us that we’re not alone.

Since they bring up the late screenwriter Hughes, who later turned to copycatting his own Home Alone movies to the point of being repellent or plain boring, isn't that interesting they make it sound like all movies normalized jokes about sexual abuse, though I will say that in retrospect, I do think those that do - and Hughes turned out at least one, the Breakfast Club, where it was implied Judd Nelson molested Molly Ringwald under a table - made a disgusting, embarrassingly bad mistake that's only hurt moviedom in hindsight and made things difficult for more recent filmmakers, who're no doubt terrified of dealing with sexual issues, based on what a certain filmmaker who directed the most recent James Bond movie falsely said about Thunderball.

But was virtually all the dialogue in Hughes' teenage-themed films like what this Doyle's claiming? I don't recall what I saw being all that bad. So it sounds like another somebody is just exaggerating if that's what it takes to justify his or her shoddy positions on what constitutes "entertainment". Because despite what they say about violence not being okay, and not something to take for granted, it's clear they still believe what they're setting out to do is "fun". It's not. There's plenty of ways to teach that violence is not the answer to everything and that the whole notion it's wonderful to commit heinous acts is offensive and wrong, morally or otherwise, without making it all out to sound like the story's written for cheap sensationalism. When a writer takes that kind of path, then whatever moral lesson is allegedly in store is contradicted.

As for being a teen not guaranteeing safety, well of course being a teen isn't any better than being an adult, and the past decade's served to teach that the hard way. But that doesn't mean comics writers should be obsessing over the horror genre and not at least providing teens or anybody with some kind of solace and relief from what a sadistic world this can be. Funny how the same people turning out these horror thrillers don't have any issue with savages like Iran's, in example, by sharp contrast. And is there something wrong with a direction that offers teenagers something to feel happy about romantically? If Doyle's saying that's wrong, it's atrocious, and again, an example of how many pseudo-scribes today have no sense of mirth, nor do they wish to be happy.

While working on Dead Teenagers, were you both influenced or inspired by any other time loop or high school stories in film, television, books, comics, or video games (horror or otherwise)?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: There are a lot of straightforward teen comedies that I looked to for inspiration. I think Clueless and Mean Girls and 10 Things I Hate About You are just effortless, beautiful movies that don’t get the critical respect they deserve because they were made for teenage girls. I also think of Final Destination as a comedy, though that’s probably my problem. I also, strangely, pulled from superhero comics; I loved X-Men comics as a kid, particularly the teen series Generation X, because the characters had that found-family dynamic, and the inter-scene banter was often just as interesting as whatever they were fighting.

Caitlin Yarsky: All of the media Jude mentioned was inspiration for me too. I was also a big Buffy fan and read a ton of Goosebumps, Fear Street, and Stephen King books. There were movies like She’s All That and shows like Clarissa Explains It All that will always live in my head rent-free.

Caitlin, you created a great variant cover for Dead Teenagers #1 that pays homage to the iconic ’90s film Pretty Woman, and I understand that you’ll be honoring other ’90s films with a variant cover for each upcoming issue. Can you give us a tease of which ’90s films you’ll be celebrating on future covers?

Caitlin Yarsky: Haha I’m not sure how many I can spoil, but I’ll say that Clueless is in the mix!

I find it very unappealing when somebody draws inspiration from a scribe as unendurable as King's turned out to be. I may have watched 2 or 3 movies based on his novels in the past, but that's decidedly it, and I'd rather have nothing to do with him today. Interesting though that the writer actually loved X-Men, right down to the spinoff Lobdell wrote back in the day that may be considered one of the few better items in his resume. Were his forays into the horror genre what influenced this comic? Whatever, I don't see how something as revolting as what they describe could pay tribute to comedies and dramas that were far from horror thrillers in their time. What is clear is that the influence of horror continues to be chillingly dominant.

Ultimately, what do you hope readers take away from this comic book series?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: Fun, hopefully. It’s a dark time and we could all use a break. But also, I want people who don’t normally see themselves or their teenage struggles portrayed in the media to feel seen, and I want to give us all a little encouragement to reckon with our formative traumas and leave our safe zones and grow up.

Caitlin Yarsky: Entertainment for sure, but as Jude said, there are deep themes in here that I hope resonate with people who may feel unrepresented or unheard. I hope people find it exciting and fun, but also meaningful and something they would want to revisit.

If it's so dark today, why do they want to heap more upon us? The mere mention of "fun", as noted before, only contradicts any supposedly positive messages they're trying to convey. Seriously, this is repulsive. And what does she mean by "unrepresented and unheard"? The following near the end may give a clue:

With Dead Teenagers #1 being released in comic book shops on March 18th, what other projects do you both have coming up that you can tease for our readers, and where can they go online to keep up to date on your work?

Jude Ellison S. Doyle: I’ve written a whole bunch of things in the last year—aside from Dead Teenagers, there’s Be Not Afraid, which just wrapped up at BOOM!, and DILF: Did I Leave Feminism, which is my obligatory non-fiction book about my transition. [...]

What?!? Does this mean the writer's a woman who took the transsexual route too?!? Boy, there sure is something mind-bogglingly wrong with this whole picture then. So the writer/artist claim this horror tale is meant to be "fun", despite jarring violence being anything but, and then they expect supposedly positive messages to work? Sigh. One must wonder if there's certain left-wing "feminists" who got so disillusioned with the belief system, yet actually thought self-hatred of their sex was any more acceptable, to the point they desecrated themselves in the past decade. For all we know, that could be the fallout from feminism, that it failed to make women proud to be what they are, and only led to worse in the long run.

Anyway, it's shameful how there's quite a few scribes in comicdom who're obsessing with the horror genre, and telling these specialty sites in turn exactly what they'd love to hear. I don't think John Hughes movies of the past 4 decades are perfect, but emphasizing the horror genre does not an improvement make. What the twosome who put out this loathsome comic are doing is despicable.

The reception of comics in India, and what they were used for

The Print covered a convention panel in Delhi about the history of Indian comics, and what their reception was like:

For Mahima, who runs the operations of the Mehrauli Community Library, comics are not just fun books or distractions, but a bridge to literacy.

“Comics meet children where they are in their language, their humour and their reality,” she said, speaking at the roundtable discussion titled ‘Comics as Witness’ on 14 March at the Foundation For Indian Contemporary Art Reading Room in Delhi. [...]

According to Mahima, comics are changing how people read. “Comics invite collaboration unlike picture books where one person reads to another,” she said, adding that comics build read-aloud and performance skills as well as teamwork.

She said kids are most drawn to comics that use their language. “Once a child finishes one, they immediately hunt for the next in the series, building a consistent reading habit.”

‘A precious commodity’

India has a rich tradition of comics that cover diverse topics like mythology, social satire, and superheroes. But from the mid-1990s, its craze has been declining, said graphic designer Orijit Sen, who has authored River of Stories, considered India’s first graphic novel published in 1994.

“Comics were a precious commodity when we were brought up. However, it was not a respectable thing,” he added.

That's possibly similar to the reception in the USA, which extended to animation, and led to the latter being all but ghettoized until the mid-90s as just a "children's medium". Even today, depending what's involved, the perception hasn't changed much. It's just that now, comics and animation are viewed by leftists in the west as an ideal way to indoctrinate children with political propaganda, or certainly were in the past decade. Speaking of which:

“Translation is one thing to reach different communities,” said Mahanta. She highlighted feminist collaborations for making comics and how the medium can help visualise oral histories. [...]

Sabhaney said that since 1990, comic reading has decreased but more people are now reading graphic novels. “Creators have a set of stories that they want to tell. Comics are created for particular issues such as documenting protest,” she said.

If this were the USA, seeing them talk about feminism would be more concerning. I think even the late cartoonist Will Eisner once wrote he found feminism troubling, based on how it did more harm than good to women's status in the west. And what protests are we talking about? There are obviously legitimate concerns in India that require protest, and we can only hope this alludes the right kind of topics. I think an interesting point to glean from this article is that comics came to serve as political platforms based on how they were considered an underutilized medium. But of course, that shouldn't get in the way of building science-fiction and fantasy stories as well to go alongside such products.

When an audience member asked about comics moving online, Sablania said, “The dynamic of comics is changing. The creator wants to reach as many people”.

You just have to hope it's for the right reasons, no matter the country. So if comicdom's making a comeback in India, let's hope it gets somewhere on the right foot.

Writer Alyssa Wong's leftist view

Geekdad interviewed writer Alyssa Wong, who's worked on Star Wars comics, for example, and even a Psylocke miniseries for Marvel, and along the way, she alluded to her leftist viewpoints, which also apparently includes implying she's "non-binary", having noticed some pronoun nonsense she put on her own sites, and the interviewer, predictably, went along with it, using the word "theirs" in reference to a woman who's making herself sound like she's ashamed to be one. Along the way, the exchange includes the following:

GD: Yes! I love Captain Marvel. I love Doc Aphra. I was going to show you a picture of this because I made this for a friend of mine…(shows them a photo of White Fox)

AW: *gasps*

GD: This is my friend’s costume, but I made the mask, and I actually modeled it, and I made a mold of it so I can make more, and I was going to ask if I could send you one.

AW: I would love that. She’s my girl! I was working for Blizzard on Overwatch – another thing that I wasn’t expecting to do, but I wanted to learn so let’s go! I was working at Blizzard on Overwatch, and Greg Pak, who I know from Asian American Activism called me, and he was like, ‘Hey, I’m writing these B-stories for the back of (I believe it was) the Aero comics. I’m looking for a co-writer. It’s Wave and Aero.’ I was like, ‘oh my God! Wave?! Filipina superhero, Wave?! Wave, who every Filipino person is excited about?’ My mom’s Filipino, so I was like, ‘That’s a hard yes!’ I actually told Blizzard that I was doing it and that if they weren’t okay with that, it was too bad. I was going to do it. I would just quit. Which is crazy but-

GD: It was that important to you.

AW: It was that important to me. This kind of work is the most important to me. That was the first thing I did for Marvel, and then the first comic that I wrote by myself was a one shot White Fox origin story, so she’s my forever girl. I love White Fox. I would love to have one.

No doubt, the interviewer's referring to the take on Carol Danvers where she's turned inside out, all for the sake of producing a female variant on Mar-Vell of the Kree, and they went out of their way to practically retcon Carol's whole background from when she originally became Ms. Marvel in the late 1970s, to the point where she'd been changed to a Kree herself. As for Wong knowing Pak as an activist, what kind of activism would it be? The left-wing variety?

GD: I also love Psylocke, so when I saw your name on the guest list I had to ask for an interview.

AW: Thank you for asking because cons are so busy, and I know it’s a sacrifice of your time as well, so I really appreciate it.

Does he love any woke modifications that could've been made to Psylocke as well? If Wong did any such thing, that's deplorable, and what's told further on gives no reason to assume her renditions of Psylocke are much better:

GD: I remember when the very first Solo trailers came out and Val was in there but didn’t mention who she was, I was like, ‘Are we going to get Sana!?’ And then it wasn’t, which is fine. But then they killed her off so unceremoniously.

AW: That was so sad. Writing Aphra is so special, and let me put it this way. The first time I saw someone like me in Star Wars was The Force Awakens. And there is a pilot named Jessika Pava. She is in the middle of the battle. She is in an X-wing. She’s in the starfighter, and she’s in the middle of this battle, and I remember seeing her, and my heart just swelled. I was like, “Oh my God. An Asian woman!” And then immediately dropped because the next thing I thought was, “Oh, she’s going to die.” Because you have an extra who is going to die, so it’s no risk to have an Asian person. It’s no risk at all. And then she didn’t die! And I was like, ‘What’s happening?’ Getting to write someone like Doctor Aphra, who is Asian like me and also queer, like me, is incredible because I feel like I’m finally getting to see people like me in Star Wars, but it’s more magical that I get to give that to other people. I’ve had so many Asian people come up to me and be like, “That’s my girl. She means everything to me!” I just love that. I love it so much. And it’s so sad that my first thought when I saw Jessika Pava was, “Oh she’s here, and she’s going to die immediately” because that’s usually what happens to people like us. To be fair, I have killed Aphra, BUT she’s back! With Aphra, I got to write a lot of people who remind me of people I know, and it’s so special.

Why is it such a big deal that every new character pushed for prominency be a LGBT practitioner? And there have been plenty of Asian characters in entertainment for decades already, so it's very silly to act like it all just happened overnight. And if it is such a big deal, how come it's only "Asian", but not backgrounds like Thai or Burmese? She's not thinking very hard, and if she has no interest in emphasizing characters with Danish or Bulgarian backgrounds in her comics, she's accomplished nothing.

GD: Related to that, did you watch The Acolyte? With such a diverse cast and being treated the way it was treated despite being amazing and an awesome show, I don’t know a single person in real life who actually doesn’t love it so the fact that it was like, “Oh yeah, it’s not doing well. We’re not gonna do the second season.” How did you feel about it?

AW: I was very disappointed with the way that the The Acolyte was treated. I love it. I think it’s fun and it’s daring. I’m a High Republic stan as you know. I was so disappointed with the way it was treated. I think, for me, The Acolyte was a little spark of hope because, again, it was trying something new and trying a bunch of different ways that we can see the Jedi. They were bringing in villains that we’ve never seen. There were people, again, like the people I know in real life, and the fact that it was shut down, is really disappointing. And we all know why. We all know why it was shut down. Something I’ve gotten, and that a number of people have gotten in Star Wars and in other media that I’ve written for, is this angry backlash of, “You’re writing this thing I don’t like it. You’re going to destroy the thing I love.” What people don’t understand, and they should, is that the thing they love still exists. Also, I don’t have the power to destroy anything! It’s not being shut down, it’s welcoming more people in, and the fact that that is so threatening to people is really disappointing to me. It doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop trying though!

GD: That’s good! I love all Star Wars. It doesn’t matter what it is. There are things I like less, but there’s nothing I do not like. A lot of people seem to go into things looking for reasons not to like it. But for me, it’s a new Star Wars. I’m going to go in expecting to enjoy it and that makes me enjoy it every time even if there are things that I’m not thrilled about. It’s more Star Wars, why complain? The Acolyte has some of the best lightsaber fight scenes we’ve ever seen.

AW: Oh, beautiful! Absolutely beautiful. Stunning. It’s really sad. I think it can be very discouraging too on the creative side, but, at the same time, we keep fighting because the other option is giving up and that’s what a lot of people who don’t want change and don’t like diverse casts and diverse writing rooms and diverse creators want. They want us to give up. If I gave up that’s okay, but I won’t because I personally am not going to let them win. I understand it when people leave, and I would never judge them for that, but me personally, I’m staying, and I’m going to keep fighting.

While I don't deny such a mindset exists where somebody looks for a reason to dislike a particular product, no matter the quality, I will say this is incredibly stupid to say there's nothing about a franchise that doesn't disappoint. Especially today, after all the woke garbage forced into franchises like these, and Wong doesn't have the courage to admit it. Since when don't we like diverse casts? She's not even clear what she means by that. The problem is that much of what she calls "diversity" has become very, very forced, with less concern taken on whether the screenplay and comics scripts have entertainment value. That's what she otherwise fails to acknowledge here, and so, it's pretty apparent she's more interested in implying the entire fanbase of Star Wars, for instance, is nothing more than racist. Nor does she admit the shoehorning of LGBT ideology into these franchises is what's really alienated many filmgoers, who don't want to be lectured.

GD: On a related note, going back to Carol, one of my favorites, when the first Captain Marvel movie came out I saw a lot of people talking about, especially her relationship with Maria, being a little queer coded, but in the comics she’s definitely the opposite. Did you see that? Did you enjoy the Captain Marvel movie?

AW: I love the Captain Marvel movie. When I was growing up, I wasn’t allowed to read comics, so I came to comics pretty late, and, in a lot of ways, that was kind of my first exposure to Captain Marvel, which I know is kind of wild, and after that I was like, ‘I’m reading everything!’ So, I love that movie. I love me a little sapphic energy. I love it.

GD: And then the Marvels movie which kind of got the same reception as The Acolyte, but I thought was amazing and loved. Especially the energy and the relationship between all three of them (Carol, Monica, and Kamala) was so beautiful and so much fun. Have you seen it?

AW: This is a bit embarrassing. I’ve seen part of it, but I haven’t seen all of it. What I will also say is that what I saw, I loved. I think it’s so fun, and not every movie should be a very serious intense drama where everybody is just going through it all the time – people are fighting, they are dying, and it’s not like The Marvels didn’t have that kind of energy, but it’s fun. It’s exciting, and we need that kind of energy, absolutely. So again I’m also disappointed at the treatment of The Marvels.

This is beginning to sound more like somebody was predisposed to liking the movie no matter how poor the screenplay/acting/direction was in the end, which is little better than being predisposed to disliking a film even if it turns out it's not the worst of its kind. What otherwise turned off audiences was how the movie was built on wokeness, to which we could also add how Carol Danvers was horrifyingly abused by Marvel staff in the past decade, all for the sake of remaking her for a woke agenda that included drawing her looking more masculine. I noticed most press sources didn't seem to use those kind of illustrations for promoting the 1st movie, as they probably realized it was embarrassing, or knew that, even in the past decade, not everybody approves of denigrating women's femininity, which is what the Capt. Marvel movie did. Nor does everyone approve of creating the teenage Ms. Marvel to serve an Islamic agenda, and interesting how both LGBT ideology and Islam are "played against the middle" without acknowledging the former's considered anathema to the latter.

GD: Are there any other characters, Marvel or not, that you’ve written that you’d like to see on the big screen?

AW: I want to see Psylocke. I know that’s a tricky one, but I would love to see Psylocke. I want to see Cassandra Kane in a big way not just briefly but comics Cassandra Kane. I want to see her lethal and emotionally vulnerable and compassionate and just absolutely stunning, in terms of character work, absolutely stunning. That’s what I want.

Wasn't Psylocke already in at least one of the live action X-Men movies? And wasn't Kane in the disastrous Birds of Prey film? I guess among the things Wong didn't read or watch, it was the earlier X-Men films, and BoP. What good is all this then?

GD: Of all of your characters, is there any that you feel represents you the most – that have the most of you in them?

AW: Oh that’s a tough one because, for me, when I’m writing a new character, the first thing I do is a ton of research. For example, when I got tapped for Iron Fist, I read 2700 pages of Iron Fist in three days. For me, getting into the head of a character is the most important, so I read a lot. I find the things that speak to me, pull them in, and I build a character around that – who they are but also what parts I’m most invested in and the parts that most resonate with me. So in a lot of ways, everybody is representative of me. But if I had to pick, I’ll give you two.

Doctor Aphra, of course, because I wrote her for four years, and it’s hard not to put pieces of yourself into that. She’s also a mess and, like Marie Kondo, I love mess. But I feel like there’s a running thing in a lot of my work that has to do with emotional vulnerability and how terrifying that is. It’s something that I think about a lot, and it’s something that I write about a lot.

Most people would not guess this for the second character I’m about to tell you, but it’s Deadpool. Absolutely, it’s Deadpool. I think everyone writes characters differently, and for me, I was trying to figure out my angle for Deadpool. It’s Deadpool, and he’s so down bad and that’s his thing. He is so, so down bad and so open about that, but he is also terrified of the person that he’s into seeing him for who he is and actually liking him. That is something that I think a lot of us have felt. But in finding Deadpool’s voice, when I was writing, it was this horrible, horrible amalgamation of Ryan Reynolds and me and my most intrusive thoughts. So that’s my secret, which is that people are like, ‘Which character is most like you?’ and most people pick Aphra and, yes, that’s true, but it might actually be Deadpool.

Looks like somebody's making it sound like Wade Wilson's a real person, and the way she talks about "getting into heads" echoes something J. Michael Straczynski once said about Spider-Man and Captain America. Even "finding voices" isn't much different. What matters is crafting the best possible personality you can for a fictional character, and I vaguely recall Jack Kirby telling in history books how he tried to develop personalities and other such traits when he first created Cap with Joe Simon. The way modern writers have approached characterization over the years, by contrast, is laughable as it's detached from reality.

GD: I have not read your Deadpool run, so I’m gonna go do that.

AW: Thank you. It’s a body horror romcom.

GD: I do like Deadpool. I have read some Deadpool before, but mostly I just enjoy him in the movies, but I will go read it because that sounds amazing.

AW: Thank you. I never fault anybody for not liking a character in general. Sometimes people will be like, ‘Oh, I don’t care about Psylocke.’ and that’s totally fine. I’m not going to be like, ‘How dare you not care about Psylocke?!’ or Doctor Aphra or Iron Fist or Captain Marvel, but I care, and it’s okay if you don’t. If you want to give it a chance that’d be cool.

Not sure why somebody who already acts like fictional characters are real people is complaining about people allegedly disliking Betsy Braddock. What's definitely missing is a point about why merit is what matters, not recognition and ranking. I guess Wong is so self-important she's not willing to acknowledge the talent of the writers/artists is what matters, not the character. So again, we have a case here of somebody ignoring the point made in Who Framed Roger Rabbit by his humanoid wife Jessica, that "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way". Though actually, she wasn't drawn badly at all, and her character design was pretty good for an animated character pasted onto the live action backdrop of a movie. Ironically, in the past decade in comicdom, there were quite a few examples of below-rock-bottom artwork turning up, increasingly sexless, and made all the worse by the still surviving failure to distinguish between fiction and reality in regards to non-existent cartoon characters.

GD: That’s ok. I have Marvel Unlimited, so I can find it pretty easily. We mentioned Psylocke. You started writing after they finally split them (Betsy and Kwannon) apart. Were you a Psylocke fan before or knew much about her before you started writing? I know you said you do a lot of research when you start writing, but how much did you know about Psylocke before you started?

AW: Psylocke is one of those characters we talked about a lot in college. My friends talked about Psylocke a lot. She is a big, big topic in Asian American media discussions. Her history is controversial.

No doubt, this alludes to the science-fiction idea of body swapping, and apparently, somebody thought it was literally wrong to change the race of a fictional character because one was white and the other Asian. Is that it? Although note that the interviewer appears to have confused what occurred in the late-80s-early 90s story from UXM #256, making it sound almost like 2 characters were merged in the same body literally. Or something like that. But no, it was basically Betsy Braddock having her brainwaves moved into another body belonging to a girl named Kwannon, although Fabian Nicieza established this more officially in 1993, in X-Men #31. If they believe that Braddock should be restored to her own body and Kwannon to hers, okay, but beyond that, why this has to be so controversial is silly, and an attack on creativity. All by the same people who have no problem with race/sex swapping in modern times, and seem particularly okay with changing sexual preference of established characters like Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott, and X-Man Iceman. Wong makes her beliefs clearer in the following:

GD: How important, or big of a deal, was it for you when they finally actually fixed it – split them back apart and gave her herself back?

AW: The way I felt this wave of joy and triumph and relief. Oh my God. It was so good. The other thing too is, there’s a very strong history, and, you know, present, of Asian women’s bodies being a commodity and an object for people to have, to look at. This lack of agency that people assume then strips it away from real Asian people. That’s another thing about Psylocke’s origin that is messy and complicated. We see these things happen. We see them in real life. We see them in our histories – these patterns that repeat. That’s part of why her story and her origin both resonate and are very complicated. So getting to write Psylocke was really interesting, and when I found out that she and Betsy had finally split, that they had their own bodies, I was like, ‘Thank God. Thank God.” Because they both need their own agency, and they both need their own bodies. To give Psylocke herself back, that’s a major, major victory. Not just for Psylocke, not just for comics fans (sometimes they think it’s victory but who can say…)

GD: Depends on if they are The Acolyte fans or not.

AW: Oh God, it’s so true! But also Asian people who don’t read comics who might know about Psylocke who might think, ‘Oh my God. I am never reading that. That is horrifying,’ but to hear, ‘Oh, I can read an Asian hero who’s finally actually Asian again!’ That’s so key! So when they asked if I would write Psylocke, I said absolutely. My first question was which Psylocke, and my second question was are you sure, and the third thing I said was, ‘Absolutely.’ It’s really nice. The questions of agency and bodies is built entirely into this book as well as identity. Who are you after all these things happen to you? Who do you choose to be? And do you believe you can be that person?

Oh good grief. What does this mean? That it's okay to read about a sex-change switcheroo, but not about an alleged race-change switcheroo? Of course, let's also consider how in the past decade, Marvel tried to race-swap Bruce Banner as the Hulk by introducing an Asian man who made absurd stereotypical comments like "totally awesome Hulk". Now, that may not have been Banner himself whose ethnicity/race was changed, but even so, that didn't make the woke replacement any more merit-based, let alone enjoyable. Something curiously unmentioned in this puff piece. Seriously, if anybody, Asian or otherwise, can't read a story about character who undergo science-fiction switcheroos because it's supposedly a slight or just too embarrassing, then what's the whole point of science fiction anyway? I also recall there's a Superman story from around 1970 where Lois Lane used a science fiction machine to disguise herself as black, in order to blend in and get a story about race relations, and some modern PC advocates seem to denigrate that story too as though it were literally the worst thing that could happen. Yet they're perfectly okay with today's forced and contrived race-swapping, regardless of whether it's sci-fi based or not, and regardless of whether white protagonists are denigrated along the way. Indeed, what do these PC advocates think of anti-white racism and discrimination? By their logic, even Superman's creation as a white guy would've been a crime to start with. Towards the end:

GD: So the last question I have is kind of just a fun one. Aphra, Indy, and Lara Croft are all competing for the same thing – who wins and how weird is it for Aphra that Indiana Jones kind of looks like Han Solo?

AW: Lara Croft wins. Aphra comes in second. Indy comes in last. Indy’s so tired. He’s so tired. Does he even wanna be here? Who can say, but he doesn’t have a choice, so he’s here. You just can’t beat Lara Croft. Aphra, I think, is the person who’s like, ‘I’m gonna get that thing,’ looks like she’s gonna get that thing, gets the thing, and then fumbles it because, I feel like, she fumbles everything. She managed to fumble several very incredible, very invested women in her life. It’s remarkable. Aphra is peak girl failure, Lara is peak girl boss, and Indy is like, ‘I’m exhausted. I’m an exhausted dad. I’m so tired.’ I love that.

Something tells me she's not referring to Harrison Ford when discussing Indy. His political positions are certainly tired. But to say Indiana Jones as a character is tired? Sorry, but that alone is illogical, because what matters is whether the screenplays, acting and directing are tired. And the Dial of Destiny movie from a few years ago sure buried the franchise in an artistic fiasco. Say, is Wong implying Lara's the bizarre "girlboss" stereotype? Well that's decidedly also appalling, mainly because I don't think she was created that way. And how curious Wong's putting down Aphra. Or, she really wrote the Star Wars doctor as such a failure? Gee, how weird indeed. This is not helping any.

It's regrettable Wong's got to be one of the wokest advocates in comicdom today, and it won't be a shock if her writing is rock bottom as a result of the politics she follows. The beliefs she upholds are those of hysteria, and explain perfectly how mainstream entertainment and comicdom became so bad. Lara Croft may be a great creation, but if Wong's writing anything starring the Tomb Raider adventuress in the forseeable future, it'd be best to avoid it. I'm also skeptical she's really a comics fan, based on how she didn't read any growing up, and it's not hard to guess she only sees them as a means for political promotion. It's also a shame she wants to follow a LGBT pronoun gimmick, which only makes things worse, though it does explain some of her ideological positions that she apparently goes by.

Martial arts museum honors Scott Lobdell

EQS News announced the veteran comics writer Lobdell is being appreciated by the Martial Arts History Museum in Glendale, CA: T

he Martial Arts History Museum proudly announces that Friday, March 20, 2026, will officially be celebrated as “Scott Lobdell Day,” honoring the influential career of legendary comic book writer Scott Lobdell; A Tribute to a Defining Voice in X-Men History.

Best known for his landmark work during the 1990s on Marvel’s mutant titles – including celebrated runs on Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, and the fan-favorite Generation X – Lobdell helped define one of the most commercially and culturally significant eras in comic book history. His character-driven storytelling shaped the emotional arcs of the X-Men during a period of explosive global popularity. [...]

The Tribute Ceremony will include:

A biography of Scott Lobdell, a formal presentation of a certificate officially recognizing March 20, 2026, as “Scott Lobdell Day” with a special photo montage of his career. [...]

Scott’s work helped define an era and his stories gave readers heroes who struggled, evolved, and overcame adversity – themes that mirror the core values preserved and celebrated at the museum.

How fascinating they consider him worthy of an honor, considering his resume's mediocre, and got worse after the turn of the century. GenX is one of the few that may be worthwhile. Also, whatever involvement Lobdell's had with X-Men has been rare since he last wrote it in 2001. And he has very little social media presence today, save for using Instagram, from what I can tell.

That said, I assume another reason they're giving him this honor is because he hopefully improved his personality ever since the time when he admitted he'd sexually harrassed an artist at a LGBT panel, of all places. From what I can tell, he thankfully never crossed the line like the now disgraced Neil Gaiman did, so who knows? Maybe Lobdell is worthy of receiving this martial arts honor, based on if he's made an effort to redeem himself in the past several years.

Even so, I don't think he's fit for writing mainstream comics anymore, and whatever he did post-2000 was certainly dreadful.